6 ms·

I mean, sure, if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable because the government is putting hallucinogens in the water so you can't trust anyth

by tntn 8y ago

I mean, sure, if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable because the government is putting hallucinogens in the water so you can't trust anything you perceive, or whatever. But if that is the case, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything, so it doesn't make much sense that you claimed flat earth is "not even close" to two religions in terms of difficulty of disproving (there can be no rank of everything is impossible). I'm not sure what you were going for there. Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you, which is fine, but not really a response to 'sonnyblarney's original comment.

lisper 8y ago
> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology to be pretty dumb.) Nearly all religions are "easily" proven false simply by the overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife, that mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it. That's for a "generic" religion with no specific claims about the nature of the afterlife, whether or not there are deities, etc. etc. Scientology and Mormonism (to cite but two of many noteworthy examples) go on to make many more specific false claims, each one of which makes the theory easier to debunk. But of course this is not going to convince anyone who adheres to a religion, which is my whole point. There really is no difference. Religion and flat-eartherism both have equal scientific tenability (i.e. zero). People adhere to these beliefs for other reasons. And in both cases, those reasons are not entirely illegitimate.
- gbear605 8y ago
  > overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation. You can certainly not believe in there being an infinitely powerful computer system like this, but it's a claim entirely unrelated to your claim about the brain.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provability in both cases. > Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. And, BTW, brain-cloning technology would in no way refute my position. To the contrary, the development of this technology would just be further evidence that mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms.
    - gbear605 8y ago
      I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "just" be another computational substrate that runs the function of the mind. > Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. This infinitely powerful computer system is just a metaphor for a deity that is omniscient. I could have equivalently said "Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation." If you're going to say that the existence of an omniscient deity is equivalent to hallucinogens in the water supply, then we're not going to convince each other of anything, since I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.
      - lisper 8y ago
        I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain, which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe What difference does it make if you call it a "deity" or an "intelligent alien" or a "government conspiracy" or a leprechaun? Yes, brain-cloning technology is possible in principle (as far as we know) but there is no evidence that it actually exists anywhere. Likewise, a vast conspiracy to produce fake evidence for a round earth is also possible in principle, but there is no evidence for it. These two things have the exact same ontological status. > I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given. Huh??? Why would you assume that?
- tntn 8y ago
  One final comment from me, then I'll shut up. > overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife I agree that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife. I do not agree that there is evidence that there is no afterlife. So in response to "is there an afterlife," I would say it looks improbable, but can't say for sure that there isn't. In my mind, this stands in contrast to flat earth: for that, there is no evidence that the earth is flat, but there is also evidence that the earth is not flat. So I can say the earth is definitely not flat, because I can see it is round. I think our point of disagreement is whether there is evidence that the earth is not flat, because one can come up with all kinds of scenarios to explain the observations while allowing the earth to be flat (hallucinogenic water, etc). I don't expect to convince you of anything, just wanted to summarize how I think about this, for completeness. As 'klibertp mentioned elsewhere, at this point we are rehashing ancient philosophical discussions (and I'm doing it quite poorly), so let's call it quits (feel free to respond if you want, I'll read it, but won't respond). It's been fun.
  - lisper 8y ago
    You should read this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of...

by tntn 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology to be pretty dumb.) Nearly all religions are "easily" proven false simply by the overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife, that mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it. That's for a "generic" religion with no specific claims about the nature of the afterlife, whether or not there are deities, etc. etc. Scientology and Mormonism (to cite but two of many noteworthy examples) go on to make many more specific false claims, each one of which makes the theory easier to debunk. But of course this is not going to convince anyone who adheres to a religion, which is my whole point. There really is no difference. Religion and flat-eartherism both have equal scientific tenability (i.e. zero). People adhere to these beliefs for other reasons. And in both cases, those reasons are not entirely illegitimate.

gbear605 8y ago
> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation. You can certainly not believe in there being an infinitely powerful computer system like this, but it's a claim entirely unrelated to your claim about the brain.
- lisper 8y ago
  > How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provability in both cases. > Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. And, BTW, brain-cloning technology would in no way refute my position. To the contrary, the development of this technology would just be further evidence that mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms.
  - gbear605 8y ago
    I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "just" be another computational substrate that runs the function of the mind. > Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. This infinitely powerful computer system is just a metaphor for a deity that is omniscient. I could have equivalently said "Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation." If you're going to say that the existence of an omniscient deity is equivalent to hallucinogens in the water supply, then we're not going to convince each other of anything, since I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.
    - lisper 8y ago
      I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain, which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe What difference does it make if you call it a "deity" or an "intelligent alien" or a "government conspiracy" or a leprechaun? Yes, brain-cloning technology is possible in principle (as far as we know) but there is no evidence that it actually exists anywhere. Likewise, a vast conspiracy to produce fake evidence for a round earth is also possible in principle, but there is no evidence for it. These two things have the exact same ontological status. > I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given. Huh??? Why would you assume that?
tntn 8y ago
One final comment from me, then I'll shut up. > overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife I agree that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife. I do not agree that there is evidence that there is no afterlife. So in response to "is there an afterlife," I would say it looks improbable, but can't say for sure that there isn't. In my mind, this stands in contrast to flat earth: for that, there is no evidence that the earth is flat, but there is also evidence that the earth is not flat. So I can say the earth is definitely not flat, because I can see it is round. I think our point of disagreement is whether there is evidence that the earth is not flat, because one can come up with all kinds of scenarios to explain the observations while allowing the earth to be flat (hallucinogenic water, etc). I don't expect to convince you of anything, just wanted to summarize how I think about this, for completeness. As 'klibertp mentioned elsewhere, at this point we are rehashing ancient philosophical discussions (and I'm doing it quite poorly), so let's call it quits (feel free to respond if you want, I'll read it, but won't respond). It's been fun.
- lisper 8y ago
  You should read this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of...